People v. Todd

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Todd

280 A.D.2d 906, 719 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1096

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 7, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 906 (People v. Todd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Todd, 280 A.D.2d 906, 719 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1096 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [2]) and robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [3]). We reject defendant’s contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the rob[907]*907bery conviction. The evidence establishes that, in the course of forcibly stealing property, defendant used and threatened the immediate use of a dangerous instrument (see, Penal Law § 160.15 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the People were not required to prove that defendant inflicted serious physical injury upon the victim; serious physical injury is not an element of the crime charged (see, Penal Law § 160.15 [3]; cf., Penal Law § 160.15 [1]).

County Court properly sentenced defendant as a second felony offender. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the People filed a statement pursuant to CPL 400.21, and the record establishes that there was substantial compliance with the requirement that the court inquire whether defendant controverted the prior felony (see, People v Ford, 157 AD2d 992, 993, lv denied 75 NY2d 919). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Scudder, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [2]) and robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [3]). We reject defendant’s contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the rob[907]*907bery conviction. The evidence establishes that, in the course of forcibly stealing property, defendant used and threatened the immediate use of a dangerous instrument (see, Penal Law § 160.15 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the People were not required to prove that defendant inflicted serious physical injury upon the victim; serious physical injury is not an element of the crime charged (see, Penal Law § 160.15 [3]; cf., Penal Law § 160.15 [1]).

County Court properly sentenced defendant as a second felony offender. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the People filed a statement pursuant to CPL 400.21, and the record establishes that there was substantial compliance with the requirement that the court inquire whether defendant controverted the prior felony (see, People v Ford, 157 AD2d 992, 993, lv denied 75 NY2d 919). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Scudder, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 906, 719 N.Y.S.2d 913, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1096, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-todd-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack